|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 18:10:08 GMT
The critics' embargo breaks on Friday, but some of the critics (Anthony Breznican among them) have been nevertheless singing the film's praises on Twitter. It looks like it's gonna be a monster hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 26, 2017 18:34:44 GMT
Awesomesauce.
Saw a new trailer in front of Wind River the other week, and it just keeps looking better and better.
|
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 26, 2017 19:42:45 GMT
Oh, don't do this to me. I just fell in love with the book and I'm still in the mind set that no film can ever do it justice. It deserves to be its own mini-series, at the very least. But I'm still going to be there opening weekend anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 20:10:28 GMT
Oh, don't do this to me. I just fell in love with the book and I'm still in the mind set that no film can ever do it justice. It deserves to be its own mini-series, at the very least. But I'm still going to be there opening weekend anyway. Well, there was the 1990 miniseries . . . Don't get me wrong, I've been wanting an eight-part miniseries of it for almost twenty years, and when I saw Fukunaga do True Detective, it felt very much like a trial run for It. But the more I see what Muschietti has done, the love and care he's taken with the material, and the fact that his Derry actually evokes the Derry from the novels, I have faith. |
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 26, 2017 20:13:58 GMT
Oh, don't do this to me. I just fell in love with the book and I'm still in the mind set that no film can ever do it justice. It deserves to be its own mini-series, at the very least. But I'm still going to be there opening weekend anyway. Well, there was the 1990 miniseries . . . Don't get me wrong, I've been wanting an eight-part miniseries of it for almost twenty years, and when I saw Fukunaga do True Detective, it felt very much like a trial run for It. But the more I see what Muschietti has done, the love and care he's taken with the material, and the fact that his Derry actually evokes the Derry from the novels, I have faith. You ever read Fukunaga's script? |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 20:29:15 GMT
Well, there was the 1990 miniseries . . . Don't get me wrong, I've been wanting an eight-part miniseries of it for almost twenty years, and when I saw Fukunaga do True Detective, it felt very much like a trial run for It. But the more I see what Muschietti has done, the love and care he's taken with the material, and the fact that his Derry actually evokes the Derry from the novels, I have faith. You ever read Fukunaga's script? I read one draft, yes. It was fairly close to the novel, albeit with the updated timeline and with several key alterations. It was pretty good and from what I've heard, Muschietti preserved much of this draft and replaced most of the changes with things from the novel. If that is indeed the case, I am pleased with that, because it was a strong script and each of the Losers got solid focus. I do know that there were further drafts that drastically went in a new direction (e.g. altering the setting to New York City) and from what I've heard, it was borderline unrecognizable from the novel. Muschietti wisely said that he went back to an earlier draft and reversed some of the changes Fukunaga made because he felt that while they were good changes, they were personal ones on Fukunaga's part that would've felt false coming from him. |
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 26, 2017 20:34:07 GMT
You ever read Fukunaga's script? I read one draft, yes. It was fairly close to the novel, albeit with the updated timeline and with several key alterations. It was pretty good and from what I've heard, Muschietti preserved much of this draft and replaced most of the changes with things from the novel. If that is indeed the case, I am pleased with that, because it was a strong script and each of the Losers got solid focus. I do know that there were further drafts that drastically went in a new direction (e.g. altering the setting to New York City) and from what I've heard, it was borderline unrecognizable from the novel. Muschietti wisely said that he went back to an earlier draft and reversed some of the changes Fukunaga made because he felt that while they were good changes, they were personal ones on Fukunaga's part that would've felt false coming from him. I read the 2014 script and honestly didn't like it. A few scenes were fantastic but I thought it was mostly pretty bad. I can tell from the trailers they changed quite a lot and kept some. Hopefully they lost the bad stuff. My point is personally I thought Fukunaga directing looked good on paper but I'm glad he was replaced. Especially after I heard about some of the changes he was making. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 20:44:31 GMT
I read one draft, yes. It was fairly close to the novel, albeit with the updated timeline and with several key alterations. It was pretty good and from what I've heard, Muschietti preserved much of this draft and replaced most of the changes with things from the novel. If that is indeed the case, I am pleased with that, because it was a strong script and each of the Losers got solid focus. I do know that there were further drafts that drastically went in a new direction (e.g. altering the setting to New York City) and from what I've heard, it was borderline unrecognizable from the novel. Muschietti wisely said that he went back to an earlier draft and reversed some of the changes Fukunaga made because he felt that while they were good changes, they were personal ones on Fukunaga's part that would've felt false coming from him. I read the 2014 script and honestly didn't like it. A few scenes were fantastic but I thought it was mostly pretty bad. I can tell from the trailers they changed quite a lot and kept some. Hopefully they lost the bad stuff. My point is personally I thought Fukunaga directing looked good on paper but I'm glad he was replaced. Especially after I heard about some of the changes he was making. I mean, if you're going to boil things down to a two-hour film, I've read a whole lot worse. And I definitely know a lot of the alterations have been reverted back to the novel. I also love that there are blatant references to the interludes in the film itself; Muschietti has said that he intends the second film to feature the Black Spot fire and the Bradley Gang execution. |
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047 
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Aug 26, 2017 21:16:38 GMT
I'm finishing up the book right now and this honestly might be my most hyped film of the Fall. I just worry my expectations will get too high because the book has been fantastic.
But seriously, I'm thrilled at how positive the reception has been. The trailers really feel like they've captured the atmosphere of Derry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Aug 26, 2017 21:17:57 GMT
Can't wait. Finally read the book last year and it looks fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 26, 2017 21:51:41 GMT
Oh, don't do this to me. I just fell in love with the book and I'm still in the mind set that no film can ever do it justice. It deserves to be its own mini-series, at the very least. But I'm still going to be there opening weekend anyway. Well, there was the 1990 miniseries . . . Don't get me wrong, I've been wanting an eight-part miniseries of it for almost twenty years, and when I saw Fukunaga do True Detective, it felt very much like a trial run for It. But the more I see what Muschietti has done, the love and care he's taken with the material, and the fact that his Derry actually evokes the Derry from the novels, I have faith. I had actually never seen it until after I finished the novel about a month back and my God, I thought outside of Tim Curry and even Seth Green, strangely enough, the rest of the movie was garbage and just shit all over everything that made the novel so good. I would honestly go even further than eight parts for a mini-series, if only because leaving one detail out wouldn't have quite the same impact for me personally, but I'm trying to have faith. I've only watched the first trailer and they seemed to capture the spirit of the novel pretty well. I just hope it's not full of dumb jump scares like the trailer made it out to be. And of course, I would've preferred Fukunaga behind the camera, so that's another big hesitation for me going into this one, but I'm hoping for the best. Plus, I didn't realize they included some references to the interludes which - the more I think about it - might be my favorite aspect of the novel. Just how vast the universe is and how much more story there is to tell and so much mystery left unsolved, it makes it feel infinite. Something I feel a two-hour or even three-hour film could never capture. I assume this film just focuses on the kids, though, right? Are they still doing a Part 1 and Part 2 deal or just leaving it as this? I think the novel works better where it shifts between past and present, which is another reason why I hate the whole split movie thing because it loses all intensity in the later years if you already know what happens, but if Part 1 is as good as everyone makes it out to be, I wouldn't mind being on board with a Part 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Aug 26, 2017 22:04:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 22:09:51 GMT
Well, there was the 1990 miniseries . . . Don't get me wrong, I've been wanting an eight-part miniseries of it for almost twenty years, and when I saw Fukunaga do True Detective, it felt very much like a trial run for It. But the more I see what Muschietti has done, the love and care he's taken with the material, and the fact that his Derry actually evokes the Derry from the novels, I have faith. I had actually never seen it until after I finished the novel about a month back and my God, I thought outside of Tim Curry and even Seth Green, strangely enough, the rest of the movie was garbage and just shit all over everything that made the novel so good. I would honestly go even further than eight parts for a mini-series, if only because leaving one detail out wouldn't have quite the same impact for me personally, but I'm trying to have faith. I've only watched the first trailer and they seemed to capture the spirit of the novel pretty well. I just hope it's not full of dumb jump scares like the trailer made it out to be. And of course, I would've preferred Fukunaga behind the camera, so that's another big hesitation for me going into this one, but I'm hoping for the best. Plus, I didn't realize they included some references to the interludes which - the more I think about it - might be my favorite aspect of the novel. Just how vast the universe is and how much more story there is to tell and so much mystery left unsolved, it makes it feel infinite. Something I feel a two-hour or even three-hour film could never capture. I assume this film just focuses on the kids, though, right? Are they still doing a Part 1 and Part 2 deal or just leaving it as this? I think the novel works better where it shifts between past and present, which is another reason why I hate the whole split movie thing because it loses all intensity in the later years if you already know what happens, but if Part 1 is as good as everyone makes it out to be, I wouldn't mind being on board with a Part 2. Seth Green is actually the only one of the kids I feel was miscast. The first half of the miniseries, bloodless as it may be, is actually a pretty decent adaptation, all things considered. And yeah, from what I’ve heard, there aren’t nearly as many jump-scares in the actual film (the trailer uses all of them, pretty much). Yeah, they are doing a second film if the first film does well, but honestly? I don't know if it's necessary to do the adults' story. The kids' perspective is far richer and the novel only really needs the adult storyline because it works thematically for King dealing with nostalgia and closing the book on his own boyhood. But as a straightforward story, there's not much to it that isn't heavily reliant on flashbacks. |
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 26, 2017 22:33:49 GMT
I had actually never seen it until after I finished the novel about a month back and my God, I thought outside of Tim Curry and even Seth Green, strangely enough, the rest of the movie was garbage and just shit all over everything that made the novel so good. I would honestly go even further than eight parts for a mini-series, if only because leaving one detail out wouldn't have quite the same impact for me personally, but I'm trying to have faith. I've only watched the first trailer and they seemed to capture the spirit of the novel pretty well. I just hope it's not full of dumb jump scares like the trailer made it out to be. And of course, I would've preferred Fukunaga behind the camera, so that's another big hesitation for me going into this one, but I'm hoping for the best. Plus, I didn't realize they included some references to the interludes which - the more I think about it - might be my favorite aspect of the novel. Just how vast the universe is and how much more story there is to tell and so much mystery left unsolved, it makes it feel infinite. Something I feel a two-hour or even three-hour film could never capture. I assume this film just focuses on the kids, though, right? Are they still doing a Part 1 and Part 2 deal or just leaving it as this? I think the novel works better where it shifts between past and present, which is another reason why I hate the whole split movie thing because it loses all intensity in the later years if you already know what happens, but if Part 1 is as good as everyone makes it out to be, I wouldn't mind being on board with a Part 2. Seth Green is actually the only one of the kids I feel was miscast. The first half of the miniseries, bloodless as it may be, is actually a pretty decent adaptation, all things considered. And yeah, from what I’ve heard, there aren’t nearly as many jump-scares in the actual film (the trailer uses all of them, pretty much). Yeah, they are doing a second film if the first film does well, but honestly? I don't know if it's necessary to do the adults' story. The kids' perspective is far richer and the novel only really needs the adult storyline because it works thematically for King dealing with nostalgia and closing the book on his own boyhood. But as a straightforward story, there's not much to it that isn't heavily reliant on flashbacks. Strange, I felt the exact opposite. I thought the entire cast was miscast outside of Green and Curry. I mainly give Green props simply because, in the novel, I couldn't quite figure out why Richie Tozier was seen as a "loser". He was often hilarious, confident, and had a way with the ladies (as Bev would have you think). But watching Seth Green play him in that mini-series, I was like... "okay... I understand it now". The rest of the kids felt, well, like kid actors. Not what I imagined at all, especially Bill. Either way, I'm happy to hear that the new film won't be so reliant on jump scares. It would just ruin what makes the book so good. Of course, this also means I'm gonna have nightmares for weeks, but that's okay as long as it's good. I absolutely agree with you on that. The reason the book resonated with me so well wasn't because of how well-written or scary it was, it was because of how it used this traumatizing horror story to discuss facing nostalgia and looking back on your childhood, even if you hated it (as they so clearly did. But didn't? Because those were the best years of their lives). It's just so truthful and it often made me teary-eyed just thinking back on my own. Regardless, the point is, intertwining the adult story line with the kids' one makes sense for the exact reason you stated. Splitting it up just ruins both the tension of knowing how it ends, and also loses sight of what the book was all about - growing up. I mean, there are ways they could make it work, but really, should they risk it? |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 22:47:37 GMT
Strange, I felt the exact opposite. I thought the entire cast was miscast outside of Green and Curry. I mainly give Green props simply because, in the novel, I couldn't quite figure out why Richie Tozier was seen as a "loser". He was often hilarious, confident, and had a way with the ladies (as Bev would have you think). But watching Seth Green play him in that mini-series, I was like... "okay... I understand it now". The rest of the kids felt, well, like kid actors. Not what I imagined at all, especially Bill. Either way, I'm happy to hear that the new film won't be so reliant on jump scares. It would just ruin what makes the book so good. Of course, this also means I'm gonna have nightmares for weeks, but that's okay as long as it's good. I absolutely agree with you on that. The reason the book resonated with me so well wasn't because of how well-written or scary it was, it was because of how it used this traumatizing horror story to discuss facing nostalgia and looking back on your childhood, even if you hated it (as they so clearly did. But didn't? Because those were the best years of their lives). It's just so truthful and it often made me teary-eyed just thinking back on my own. Regardless, the point is, intertwining the adult story line with the kids' one makes sense for the exact reason you stated. Splitting it up just ruins both the tension of knowing how it ends, and also loses sight of what the book was all about - growing up. I mean, there are ways they could make it work, but really, should they risk it? Richie was confident, but he wasn't really all that hilarious. The one thing I hate about the novel is how the kids tend to "laugh like loons" over and over at even the slightest humorous line. Maybe I had a miserable childhood, but you would die of alcohol poisoning if you took a shot every time King talks about "gales of screaming laughter." |
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 26, 2017 22:56:16 GMT
Strange, I felt the exact opposite. I thought the entire cast was miscast outside of Green and Curry. I mainly give Green props simply because, in the novel, I couldn't quite figure out why Richie Tozier was seen as a "loser". He was often hilarious, confident, and had a way with the ladies (as Bev would have you think). But watching Seth Green play him in that mini-series, I was like... "okay... I understand it now". The rest of the kids felt, well, like kid actors. Not what I imagined at all, especially Bill. Either way, I'm happy to hear that the new film won't be so reliant on jump scares. It would just ruin what makes the book so good. Of course, this also means I'm gonna have nightmares for weeks, but that's okay as long as it's good. I absolutely agree with you on that. The reason the book resonated with me so well wasn't because of how well-written or scary it was, it was because of how it used this traumatizing horror story to discuss facing nostalgia and looking back on your childhood, even if you hated it (as they so clearly did. But didn't? Because those were the best years of their lives). It's just so truthful and it often made me teary-eyed just thinking back on my own. Regardless, the point is, intertwining the adult story line with the kids' one makes sense for the exact reason you stated. Splitting it up just ruins both the tension of knowing how it ends, and also loses sight of what the book was all about - growing up. I mean, there are ways they could make it work, but really, should they risk it? Richie was confident, but he wasn't really all that hilarious. The one thing I hate about the novel is how the kids tend to "laugh like loons" over and over at even the slightest humorous line. Maybe I had a miserable childhood, but you would die of alcohol poisoning if you took a shot every time King talks about "gales of screaming laughter."  Yes, I started to pick on that as well. Maybe things were different in the '50s. Who knows. Of course, I meant hilarious in that he seemed to make a lot of his friends laugh, not hilarious to me personally (though some things in the book did make me laugh out loud). I can certainly understand King injecting that because I know, from my childhood, that we all had that one friend who made us laugh no matter what he did just because he was so silly. Not to mention, it added warmth to the story so that the nostalgia was more potent I think. That's how I took it at least. Something tells me King was not the Richie Tozier of his childhood friends, though. Now, I almost want to play an It drinking game now. But that's also mainly just so I can have the courage to watch a terrifying clown for two hours. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 26, 2017 22:59:05 GMT
Yes, I started to pick on that as well. Maybe things were different in the '50s. Who knows. Of course, I meant hilarious in that he seemed to make a lot of his friends laugh, not hilarious to me personally (though some things in the book did make me laugh out loud). I can certainly understand King injecting that because I know, from my childhood, that we all had that one friend who made us laugh no matter what he did just because he was so silly. Not to mention, it added warmth to the story so that the nostalgia was more potent I think. That's how I took it at least. Something tells me King was not the Richie Tozier of his childhood friends, though. Now, I almost want to play an It drinking game now. But that's also mainly just so I can have the courage to watch a terrifying clown for two hours. Take a shot every time Henry Powers pops his switchknife out to admire the gleam of the chromium. |
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 26, 2017 23:05:17 GMT
Yes, I started to pick on that as well. Maybe things were different in the '50s. Who knows. Of course, I meant hilarious in that he seemed to make a lot of his friends laugh, not hilarious to me personally (though some things in the book did make me laugh out loud). I can certainly understand King injecting that because I know, from my childhood, that we all had that one friend who made us laugh no matter what he did just because he was so silly. Not to mention, it added warmth to the story so that the nostalgia was more potent I think. That's how I took it at least. Something tells me King was not the Richie Tozier of his childhood friends, though. Now, I almost want to play an It drinking game now. But that's also mainly just so I can have the courage to watch a terrifying clown for two hours. Take a shot every time Henry Powers pops his switchknife out to admire the gleam of the chromium. Take a shot every time Pennywise uses the word "float". Take two shots every time Richie Tozier uses the phrase "sure-and-begorrah" (whatever that means). Drink the whole bottle when you justify a gang bang of twelve year-olds . Proceed by calling 9-1-1 immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 26, 2017 23:53:18 GMT
Cool, though I can't say I'm nearly as excited about this. Chalk it up to me never reading the book (maybe I should try speed-reading it?), but nothing about the movie so far has grabbed me (aside from the Wallfisch samples, those were terrifying). But I'm really hopeful for it.
Like Bunny said, though, I just hope it's not reliant on dumb jump scares. I hate it when movies think that's their only way of scaring an audience, and I think five should be the maximum, not 15 and upwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 27, 2017 0:03:02 GMT
Cool, though I can't say I'm nearly as excited about this. Chalk it up to me never reading the book (maybe I should try speed-reading it?), but nothing about the movie so far has grabbed me (aside from the Wallfisch samples, those were terrifying). But I'm really hopeful for it. Like Bunny said, though, I just hope it's not reliant on dumb jump scares. I hate it when movies think that's their only way of scaring an audience, and I think five should be the maximum, not 15 and upwards. As someone who has never read anything by Stephen King and expected the book to just be one giant novel about a scary clown, let me tell you - read it ASAP. It's such a tender, heartfelt portrait of childhood and looking back on it through the lens of nostalgia, but interjected with this ever-looming sense of dread and trying to deal with past traumas made real by King's fantastic prose and way with horror. I agree on jump scares, though. Honestly, I think one maximum is plenty because I think a true horror film should know how to scare you without resorting to it. If the only way it scares you is through a jump scare, it clearly has no sense of atmosphere and that director should stick to something else. However, there are exceptions to the rule, like Sam Raimi. One of my favorite directors and he uses jump scares with a purpose. Always adding to the eerie atmosphere of his films, but also completely pandering to his audience. But it's all about world-building. If you can't do that, shouldn't be making it in the first place. So yeah, as long as this film minimizes those jumps and focuses on the world-building, I'm in. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 27, 2017 0:46:30 GMT
Cool, though I can't say I'm nearly as excited about this. Chalk it up to me never reading the book (maybe I should try speed-reading it?), but nothing about the movie so far has grabbed me (aside from the Wallfisch samples, those were terrifying). But I'm really hopeful for it. Like Bunny said, though, I just hope it's not reliant on dumb jump scares. I hate it when movies think that's their only way of scaring an audience, and I think five should be the maximum, not 15 and upwards. As someone who has never read anything by Stephen King and expected the book to just be one giant novel about a scary clown, let me tell you - read it ASAP. It's such a tender, heartfelt portrait of childhood and looking back on it through the lens of nostalgia, but interjected with this ever-looming sense of dread and trying to deal with past traumas made real by King's fantastic prose and way with horror. I agree on jump scares, though. Honestly, I think one maximum is plenty because I think a true horror film should know how to scare you without resorting to it. If the only way it scares you is through a jump scare, it clearly has no sense of atmosphere and that director should stick to something else. However, there are exceptions to the rule, like Sam Raimi. One of my favorite directors and he uses jump scares with a purpose. Always adding to the eerie atmosphere of his films, but also completely pandering to his audience. But it's all about world-building. If you can't do that, shouldn't be making it in the first place. So yeah, as long as this film minimizes those jumps and focuses on the world-building, I'm in. I'll definitely get on it. As someone who admires King but usually finds his material better accentuated by the interpretations of others (when they aren't boneheaded hacks), Is love to give it a try. And I do agree the less the better to maximize the startle (I still remember how I flew out of my seat during The Dark Knight), but I'm still willing to let it slide at five to give a shot of adrenaline every now and then (though two or three is preferable). That one exception for me is James Wan. Like Raimi, he does get some pandering in there, but it's also good at adding to the spookiness and horror of the atmosphere. That's one area I feel where Insidious 3 was a massive drop-off from the originals. I just hate the ones that exploit the viewer with the sudden "BRRRMM!" in silence. The Babadook managed to do a cutaway scare without exploiting that sound, and it scared the hell out of me. More movies could learn from that. |
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Aug 27, 2017 1:18:26 GMT
so fucking hyped for this one . Hope it delivers .
|
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Aug 27, 2017 1:21:18 GMT
Audience embargo ending before the critic one is usually not a good sign, Nolan being the only exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Aug 27, 2017 2:01:59 GMT
As someone who has never read anything by Stephen King and expected the book to just be one giant novel about a scary clown, let me tell you - read it ASAP. It's such a tender, heartfelt portrait of childhood and looking back on it through the lens of nostalgia, but interjected with this ever-looming sense of dread and trying to deal with past traumas made real by King's fantastic prose and way with horror. I agree on jump scares, though. Honestly, I think one maximum is plenty because I think a true horror film should know how to scare you without resorting to it. If the only way it scares you is through a jump scare, it clearly has no sense of atmosphere and that director should stick to something else. However, there are exceptions to the rule, like Sam Raimi. One of my favorite directors and he uses jump scares with a purpose. Always adding to the eerie atmosphere of his films, but also completely pandering to his audience. But it's all about world-building. If you can't do that, shouldn't be making it in the first place. So yeah, as long as this film minimizes those jumps and focuses on the world-building, I'm in. I'll definitely get on it. As someone who admires King but usually finds his material better accentuated by the interpretations of others (when they aren't boneheaded hacks), Is love to give it a try. And I do agree the less the better to maximize the startle (I still remember how I flew out of my seat during The Dark Knight), but I'm still willing to let it slide at five to give a shot of adrenaline every now and then (though two or three is preferable). That one exception for me is James Wan. Like Raimi, he does get some pandering in there, but it's also good at adding to the spookiness and horror of the atmosphere. That's one area I feel where Insidious 3 was a massive drop-off from the originals. I just hate the ones that exploit the viewer with the sudden "BRRRMM!" in silence. The Babadook managed to do a cutaway scare without exploiting that sound, and it scared the hell out of me. More movies could learn from that. I'm honestly not sure how it stands next to his other work, but I just know it's easily the best thing I've ever read. Then again, I'm far more behind on books than any other medium, so maybe that doesn't say much. I absolutely agree with that. And James Wan is an excellent choice. The Conjuring was fucking horrifying enough, but that long take through the house ending with a cut to a jump scare was easily the most terrifying part of that movie for me. Just because he had already established that atmosphere, like I mentioned, and it only helped to add to it. Making you squirm in your seat. I never bothered with the two Insidious sequels, especially since the first one had given me such awful nightmares haha. Good call on The Babadook, too. It takes a page out of Raimi's book because the atmosphere is there, but it feels like a Grimm fairy tale rather than a horror movie, so the jump scares work with this childlike glee that add to the overall feel. Definitely agree that just throwing them into the movie in order to scare your audience without actually bothering to build a world around it is lazy directing. I think Kubrick should be a shining example (pun intended) of using that jump scare without exploiting sound. The YouTube channel, Lessons from the Screenplay, perfectly documents this in their video essay of the film. More should strive to do what he did. |
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Aug 27, 2017 4:09:56 GMT
stephen idioticbunnyI stumbled on this post and gave the trailer a shot and I didn't even know this was comming (I must have heard it somewhere but didn't conciously remember) and it actually looks like a lot of fun with that kids ganging up which is a concept I adore on paper (it's just very hard to pull off because of child actors and potential chese overkill if their characters are inauthetic). So if you don't mind a few questions from someone who has not read the book - nor any other King novel (as you seem the most knowledgeable): -Is my impression of the kids ganging up sort of correct? -The general story is just that IT appears and is able to transform into their fears, right? -How focussed is it on the clown and how focussed is it on the transforming into fears (I know a lot of people find clowns scary but to me it's somewhere inbetween weird and funny, though the transformation is awesome and I would love to see the more considerable part)? -It is at it's core actually a dramatic work, not action horror, right? -Let's pretend I say it's a mix between Stand by Me and Nightmare on Elm Street. How off am I?
|
|
Yes, I started to pick on that as well. Maybe things were different in the '50s. Who knows. Of course, I meant hilarious in that he seemed to make a lot of his friends laugh, not hilarious to me personally (though some things in the book did make me laugh out loud). I can certainly understand King injecting that because I know, from my childhood, that we all had that one friend who made us laugh no matter what he did just because he was so silly. Not to mention, it added warmth to the story so that the nostalgia was more potent I think. That's how I took it at least. Something tells me King was not the Richie Tozier of his childhood friends, though.
